Delhi

East Delhi

CC/497/2013

AMIT MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SONY INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC No.497/2013:

 

In the matter of:

 

Sh. Amit Mittal,

H.No. 330, Gali No.3,

Guru Ram Dass Nagar,

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092

Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. Gautam Electronics

3, Park End, Main Vikas Marg,

Opp. PreetVihar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Sony Authorised Service Centre

Off.: 94, R.V. Plaza Chaudhary Mor,

Ghaziabad

 

3. M/s. Sony India Pvt. Ltd.

Regd. Off.:

A-31, Mohan Co-operative,

Industrial Estate, Mathura Road,

New Delhi – 110 044.

Respondents

 

Dateof Admission :02/07/2013

                                                                                    Date of Order          : 09/11/2015

 

ORDER

Poonam Malhotra, Member :

 

            This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant purchased a Sony LCD Model No. KLV- 26BX350 Serial No. 3331287 for Rs. 21,000/- on 08/03/2013.  The LCD was defective from the very first day but went out of order in April, 2013.  In reply to a complaint lodged by the complainant an executive of the respondent who visited his house to check it.  He took the LCD with an assurance to replace it within seven days.It is alleged that after seven days another lease of five working days was taken by the respondent for replacement and Complaint No.13946439 was given to him but again after five days he did not get any satisfactory reply.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the respondent to refund Rs.21,000/-, the cost of the LCD and pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment meted out to him and Rs.25,000/- as the litigation cost.

            All the respondents filed a joint reply wherein while admitting the fact of purchase of a Sony LCD Model No. KLV- 26BX350 Serial No. 3331287 for Rs. 21,000/- on 08/03/2013 from Respondent No.I it has been alleged that the respondent provided warranty of one year and the liability strictly lay in accordance with the terms and conditions of the warranty.  If any claim falls outside the scope of the warranty the same cannot be imposed on the respondent.  It is further contended that the question of replacement of LCD or refund of its cost does not arise as the product is covered under warranty and not under guarantee.  It is submitted that the LCD was received at their Authorised Service Centre, the Respondent No. II herein, with complaint of “Blurred Images”.  However, on examination it was found to be working fine within its specifications and was not suffering from the defect alleged by the complainant and this fact was duly intimated to the complainant on his mobile phone by the official of Respondent No.II.  Thereafter several requests and a letter dated 10/05/2013 requesting the complainant to collect the LCD from the Authorised Service Centrewere of no consequence. They have vehemently denied allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and it is also denied that the LCD was suffering from any manufacturing defect. Rest of the allegations have been denied.

            Affidavit of the complainant and of Ms.Meena Bose on behalf of the respondents filedin evidence in support of their respective cases.

            Heard the Ld. Cls. for the parties and perused the record.

On perusal of the letter dated 10/05/2013, which is a very crucial piece of evidence filed on record by the respondents, it is observed that in this letter the Respondent No.III had intimated to the complainant that his Sony Bravia LCD Model No.KLV–26 BX 350 Serial No. 3331287 which was received at their Authorized Service Centre, M/s. NRI Electronics, Ghaziabad on 10/04/2013 vide Service Job Sheet No. 130609954 with complaint of “Blurred Images” had been thoroughly inspected and it was found to be working fine & within its specifications.  It is further stated therein that these facts have already been conveyed to the complainant by their Area Service Incharge, Mr. Sandeep Sharma.  It is mentioned in the said letter that the said LCD is ready for delivery since 13/04/2013 and this fact was conveyed to the complainant through phone by the Authorised Service Centre, M/s. NRI Electronics.  In the said letter, the Respondent No.III has also requested the complainant to provide suitable timings to them so that they can deliver the LCD at his place.  It is pertinent to mention here that it is not the case of the complainant that he has not received the said letter dated 10/05/2013.  In these circumstances, an adverse presumption shall be drawn against the complainant that he had received the said letter & despite receiving the letter dated 10/05/2013 he has not placed it on record and has, thus, concealed it from this Forum with a malafide intention to obtain a favourable order by misguiding this Forum.  Further, the complainant has also not placed on record any cogent documentary evidence to show that either subsequent to the deposit of the LCD in question at the Service Centre of the Respondent No.II or after the receipt of the letter dated 10/05/2013 and before filing the present complaint before this Forum on 11/06/2013 he had ever tried to approach the Respondent Nos.II or III for taking the delivery of his LCD and the same was refused to him by them. In the absence of any credible documentary evidence to substantiate his allegations, mere statement of the complainant that he made telephonic calls to the Respondent No.II enquiring about the status of the LCD would not suffice. When the complainant himself has neither approached the Respondent Nos. II or III for the collection of the LCD nor afforded any opportunity to them to deliver the same at his place after it had been checked and found to be working as per the specifications, it is not justifiable on his part to allege the respondents for deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

The complainant has failed to make out a case against Respondent No.I.  As such we exonerate it from any liability under this complaint towards the complainant. 

Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, we arrive at an inference that the present complaint is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed & it is dismissed accordingly with a direction to the Respondent Nos. II and III to handover to the complainant the LCD in perfect working condition within 15 days from the date of the receipt of this order.  If the complainant does not appear personally to collect the LCD then the same may be delivered at his address by the Respondent Nos.II or III. 

            Copy of the order to be sent to both the parties as per rules.

 

(Poonam Malhotra)                                                                                                           (N.A.Zaidi)

         Member                                                                                                                        President